King Charles faced a brief but pointed challenge during a visit to Lichfield Cathedral on Monday 27 October. A lone protester called out: “How long have you known about Andrew and Epstein? Have you asked the police to cover up for Andrew? Should MPs be allowed to debate the royals in the House of Commons?” The King did not respond and continued greeting well‑wishers as supporters cheered, with some in the crowd asking for a hug.
The exchange mirrored an ongoing dispute about parliamentary oversight. Downing Street said last week it would not allocate time in the Commons chamber for a debate on Prince Andrew’s conduct or housing, while the Speaker clarified that discussion is possible on a substantive motion. No 10 added that committees remain free to examine the issues.
The Liberal Democrats have moved to route scrutiny through select committees. After Prime Minister’s Questions on 22 October, Ed Davey wrote to the Public Accounts Committee chair seeking an inquiry into the Royal Lodge lease and to call Andrew to give evidence. The Prime Minister told MPs he supports proper scrutiny of Crown properties.
Public pressure intensified after the posthumous publication of Virginia Giuffre’s memoir on 21 October, which restated allegations Andrew denies; he reached a civil settlement in 2022 without admitting liability. On 17 October he announced he would cease using his titles, including Duke of York; any formal removal would require legislation.
Funding scrutiny now centres on Royal Lodge, a Crown Estate property. Documents released to the media show a 75‑year lease signed in 2003 with rent set at “one peppercorn (if demanded)”, alongside a £1m premium and at least £7.5m of refurbishments completed in 2005. Clauses require cyclical maintenance, with a payment of about £558,000 due if he leaves before 2028; the lease runs to 2078.
Because the Crown Estate’s net profits are paid to HM Treasury and help set the Sovereign Grant, lease terms at Royal Lodge raise value‑for‑money questions for the public finances. Government guidance and The Crown Estate’s own information confirm profits are returned to the Treasury, from which the grant is calculated.
Commons procedure will shape next steps. Erskine May restricts criticism of royals in questions and debate unless tabled on a substantive motion, but committees can still examine public money and Crown Estate arrangements. Committees have powers to send for persons, papers and records; in practice they rely on voluntary attendance and cannot compel the Crown.
The PAC chair has indicated the committee will write to the Crown Estate and HM Treasury seeking further detail on the lease. Buckingham Palace and Downing Street have not offered specifics on any relocation from Royal Lodge, with reporting noting no official comment on potential moves.
For policy teams, the markers to track are whether a PAC or other committee inquiry is opened, whether an Opposition Day motion is used to test the “substantive motion” route in the chamber, and whether the government revisits its refusal to grant time for a debate. Each would materially expand Parliament’s practical scrutiny of royal finances in the months ahead.